3 ms·
I liked that what is often invoked as "Appeal to Authority" is here called "Appeal to Irrelevant Authority". I probably liked that because appeal to authority
by rfrey 12y ago
I liked that what is often invoked as "Appeal to Authority" is here called "Appeal to Irrelevant Authority".
I probably liked that because appeal to authority is the one I get called out on most often, and now I can post a link in reply, from a Real Logician.
Which would be begging the question, of course, but at least I'd be mixing it up a bit.
- innguest 12y agoIt would not be begging the question, it would raise the question "does it make sense to quote the author of a book on logic to support an argument about logical fallacies" and the answer for that seems to be 'yes' (as he's a relevant authority in this case).
- pessimizer 12y agoBegging the Question: A well-known authority on logic has assured me that an appeal to an authority relevant to the subject being discussed isn't a logical fallacy.
- riffraff 12y agoI disagree that the two are the same. Appeal to authority is _still_ a logical fallacy even if the authority is somehow relevant (the high priest says $DEITY exists, and he's clearly an expert of it. Or, the plumber says I need to change the pipes even though I can see they are not broken). EDIT: the book author would probably argue the appeal to relevant authority may be a good argument, even if not a logical proof.